Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2022

Open Access 14-05-2022 | Lung Cancer | Chest

The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes

Authors: Helen Hall, Mamta Ruparel, Samantha L. Quaife, Jennifer L. Dickson, Carolyn Horst, Sophie Tisi, James Batty, Nicholas Woznitza, Asia Ahmed, Stephen Burke, Penny Shaw, May Jan Soo, Magali Taylor, Neal Navani, Angshu Bhowmik, David R. Baldwin, Stephen W. Duffy, Anand Devaraj, Arjun Nair, Sam M. Janes

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Successful lung cancer screening delivery requires sensitive, timely reporting of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, placing a demand on radiology resources. Trained non-radiologist readers and computer-assisted detection (CADe) software may offer strategies to optimise the use of radiology resources without loss of sensitivity. This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans performed as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

Methods

In this observational cohort study, two radiographers independently read all LDCT performed within LSUT and reported on the presence of clinically significant nodules and common incidental findings (IFs), including recommendations for management. Reports were compared against a ‘reference standard’ (RS) derived from nodules identified by study radiologists without CADe, plus consensus radiologist review of any additional nodules identified by the radiographers.

Results

A total of 716 scans were included, 158 of which had one or more clinically significant pulmonary nodules as per our RS. Radiographer sensitivity against the RS was 68–73.7%, with specificity of 92.1–92.7%. Sensitivity for detection of proven cancers diagnosed from the baseline scan was 83.3–100%. The spectrum of IFs exceeded what could reasonably be covered in radiographer training.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the complexity of LDCT reporting requirements, including the limitations of CADe and the breadth of IFs. We are unable to recommend CADe-supported radiographers as a sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research including initial triage of abnormal LDCT or reporting of follow-up surveillance scans.

Key Points

Successful roll-out of mass screening programmes for lung cancer depends on timely, accurate CT scan reporting, placing a demand on existing radiology resources.
This observational cohort study examines the accuracy of trained radiographers using computer-assisted detection (CADe) software to report lung cancer screening CT scans, as a potential means of supporting reporting workflows in LCS programmes.
CADe-supported radiographers were less sensitive than radiologists at identifying clinically significant pulmonary nodules, but had a low false-positive rate and good sensitivity for detection of confirmed cancers.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249PubMed Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249PubMed
2.
go back to reference Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409CrossRef Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409CrossRef
3.
go back to reference de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA et al (2020) reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 382:503–513CrossRef de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA et al (2020) reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 382:503–513CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Pastorino U, Silva M, Sestini S et al (2019) Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol 30(7):1162–1169CrossRef Pastorino U, Silva M, Sestini S et al (2019) Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol 30(7):1162–1169CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Beyer F, Zierott L, Fallenberg EM et al (2007) Comparison of sensitivity and reading time for the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) of pulmonary nodules at MDCT as concurrent or second reader. Eur Radiol 17(11):2941–2947CrossRef Beyer F, Zierott L, Fallenberg EM et al (2007) Comparison of sensitivity and reading time for the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) of pulmonary nodules at MDCT as concurrent or second reader. Eur Radiol 17(11):2941–2947CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Wang Y, van Klaveren RJ, de Bock GH et al (2012) No benefit for consensus double reading at baseline screening for lung cancer with the use of semiautomated volumetry software. Radiology 262(1):320–326CrossRef Wang Y, van Klaveren RJ, de Bock GH et al (2012) No benefit for consensus double reading at baseline screening for lung cancer with the use of semiautomated volumetry software. Radiology 262(1):320–326CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Zhao Y, de Bock GH, Vliegenthart R et al (2012) Performance of computer-aided detection of pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT: comparison with double reading by nodule volume. Eur Radiol 22:2076–2084CrossRef Zhao Y, de Bock GH, Vliegenthart R et al (2012) Performance of computer-aided detection of pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT: comparison with double reading by nodule volume. Eur Radiol 22:2076–2084CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Al Mohammad B, Brennan PC, Mello-Thoms C (2017) A review of lung cancer screening and the role of computer-aided detection. Clin Radiol 72(6):433–442CrossRef Al Mohammad B, Brennan PC, Mello-Thoms C (2017) A review of lung cancer screening and the role of computer-aided detection. Clin Radiol 72(6):433–442CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Morgan L, Choi H, Reid M, Khawaja A, Mazzone PJ (2017) Frequency of incidental findings and subsequent evaluation in low-dose computed tomographic scans for lung cancer screening. Ann Am Thorac Soc 14(9):1450–1456CrossRef Morgan L, Choi H, Reid M, Khawaja A, Mazzone PJ (2017) Frequency of incidental findings and subsequent evaluation in low-dose computed tomographic scans for lung cancer screening. Ann Am Thorac Soc 14(9):1450–1456CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Snaith B, Hardy M, Lewis EF (2015) Radiographer reporting in the UK: a longitudinal analysis. Radiography 21(2):119–123CrossRef Snaith B, Hardy M, Lewis EF (2015) Radiographer reporting in the UK: a longitudinal analysis. Radiography 21(2):119–123CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Woznitza N, Piper K, Rowe S, Bhowmik A (2018) Immediate reporting of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting radiographers: a single centre feasibility study. Clin Radiol 73(5):507.e1–507.e8CrossRef Woznitza N, Piper K, Rowe S, Bhowmik A (2018) Immediate reporting of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting radiographers: a single centre feasibility study. Clin Radiol 73(5):507.e1–507.e8CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Woznitza N, Piper K, Burke S, Bothamley G (2018) Chest X-ray Interpretation by radiographers is not inferior to radiologists: a multireader, multicase comparison using JAFROC (Jack-knife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristics) Analysis. Acad Radiol 25(12):1556–1563CrossRef Woznitza N, Piper K, Burke S, Bothamley G (2018) Chest X-ray Interpretation by radiographers is not inferior to radiologists: a multireader, multicase comparison using JAFROC (Jack-knife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristics) Analysis. Acad Radiol 25(12):1556–1563CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Nair A, Screaton NJ, Holemans JA et al (2018) The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial. Eur Radiol 28(1):226–234CrossRef Nair A, Screaton NJ, Holemans JA et al (2018) The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial. Eur Radiol 28(1):226–234CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ritchie AJ, Sanghera C, Jacobs C et al (2016) Computer vision tool and technician as first reader of lung cancer screening CT scans. J Thorac Oncol 11(5):709–717CrossRef Ritchie AJ, Sanghera C, Jacobs C et al (2016) Computer vision tool and technician as first reader of lung cancer screening CT scans. J Thorac Oncol 11(5):709–717CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL et al (2020) Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round. Thorax 75:908–912CrossRef Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL et al (2020) Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round. Thorax 75:908–912CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Beeken RJ et al (2016) The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and “hard-to-reach” patients. BMC Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2316-z Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Beeken RJ et al (2016) The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and “hard-to-reach” patients. BMC Cancer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12885-016-2316-z
19.
go back to reference Callister MEJ, Baldwin DR, Akram AR et al (2015) BTS guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 70(Suppl 2) Callister MEJ, Baldwin DR, Akram AR et al (2015) BTS guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 70(Suppl 2)
20.
go back to reference Vlahos I, Stefanidis K, Sheard S, Nair A, Sayer C, Moser J (2018) Lung cancer screening: nodule identification and characterization. Transl Lung Cancer Res 7(3):288–303CrossRef Vlahos I, Stefanidis K, Sheard S, Nair A, Sayer C, Moser J (2018) Lung cancer screening: nodule identification and characterization. Transl Lung Cancer Res 7(3):288–303CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Walter JE, Heuvelmans MA, de Jong PA et al (2016) Occurrence and lung cancer probability of new solid nodules at incidence screening with low-dose CT: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled NELSON trial. Lancet Oncol 17(7):907–916CrossRef Walter JE, Heuvelmans MA, de Jong PA et al (2016) Occurrence and lung cancer probability of new solid nodules at incidence screening with low-dose CT: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled NELSON trial. Lancet Oncol 17(7):907–916CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gendarme S, Goussault H, Assi J, Taleb C, Chouaïd C, Landre T (2021) Impact on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates of coronary artery calcifications detected during organized, low-dose, computed-tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cancers. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071553 Gendarme S, Goussault H, Assi J, Taleb C, Chouaïd C, Landre T (2021) Impact on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates of coronary artery calcifications detected during organized, low-dose, computed-tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cancers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​cancers13071553
26.
go back to reference Horst C, Dickson JL, Tisi S et al (2020) Delivering low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: a pragmatic approach. Thorax 75(10):831–832CrossRef Horst C, Dickson JL, Tisi S et al (2020) Delivering low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: a pragmatic approach. Thorax 75(10):831–832CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Mazzone P, Silvestri G, Patel S et al (2018) Screening for lung cancer: Chest guideline and expert panel report. Chest 153(4):954–985 Mazzone P, Silvestri G, Patel S et al (2018) Screening for lung cancer: Chest guideline and expert panel report. Chest 153(4):954–985
Metadata
Title
The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes
Authors
Helen Hall
Mamta Ruparel
Samantha L. Quaife
Jennifer L. Dickson
Carolyn Horst
Sophie Tisi
James Batty
Nicholas Woznitza
Asia Ahmed
Stephen Burke
Penny Shaw
May Jan Soo
Magali Taylor
Neal Navani
Angshu Bhowmik
David R. Baldwin
Stephen W. Duffy
Anand Devaraj
Arjun Nair
Sam M. Janes
Publication date
14-05-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08824-1

Other articles of this Issue 10/2022

European Radiology 10/2022 Go to the issue